Liabilities Flashcards
267(1)(a)
Danger to life - 14 years imprisonment
Everyone who Intentionally or recklessly Damages by fire or by means of any explosive Any property If he or she knows or ought to know That danger to life is likely to ensue
267(1)(b)
No interest - 14 years imprisonment
Everyone who
Intentionally or recklessly
And without claim of right
Damages by fire or by means of any explosive
Any immovable property, or any vehicle, ship, or aircraft
In which that person has no interest
267(1)(c)
To obtain or cause loss - 14 years imprisonment
Everyone who
Intentionally damages by fire or by means of any explosive
Any immovable property or any vehicle, ship, or aircraft
With intent to obtain any benefit, or to cause loss to any other person.
267(2)(a)
Damages any property - 7 years imprisonment
Everyone who
Intentionally or recklessly
And without claim of right
Damages by fire or by means of any explosive
Any property in which that person has no interest
267(2)(b)
Any property with intent to obtain or cause loss
Everyone who
Intentionally or recklessly
damages by fire or by means of any explosive
Any property
With intent to obtain any benefit or cause loss to any other person
267(3)
Reckless disregard safety of other property - 5 years imprisonment
Everyone who
Intentionally damages by fire or by means of any explosive
Any property
With reckless disregard for the safety of any other property
Define benefit?
267(4)
In this section and in section 269, benefit means any benefit, pecuniary advantage, privilege, property, service, or valuable consideration.
Intent
In a criminal law context there are two specific types of intention in an offence. Firstly there must be an intention to commit the act and secondly, an intention to get a specific result.
Circumstantial evidence from which intent may be inferred?
Offenders actions and words before, during and after the event
Surrounding circumstances
The nature of the act itself
Define recklessly?
Acting recklessly involves consciously and deliberately taking an unjustifiable risk.
R v Harney
Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In New Zealand it involves proof that the consequences complained of could well happen, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of the risk.
Proving recklessness?
- The defendant consciously and deliberately ran a risk (subjective test)
- The risk was unreasonable to take in the circumstances as they were known to the defendant (objective test)
Damages by fire?
Although fire damage will often involve burning or charring, it is not necessary that the property is actually set alight; melting, blistering of paint or significant smoke damage may be sufficient.
R v Archer
Property may be damaged if it suffers permanent or temporary physical harm or permanent or temporary impairment of its use or value.
Define fire?
Fire is the result of of the process of combustion, a chemical reaction between fuel and oxygen, triggered by heat.
Define explosive?
S2(a) arms act 1983
Means any substance or mixture or combination of substances which in its normal state is capable either of decomposition at such a rapid rate as to result in an explosion or of producing a pyrotechnic effect.
List explosives under S2(b) arms act 1983?
Gunpowder Nitroglycerin Dynamite Gun-cotton Blasting powder Fulminate of Mercury or of other metals Coloured flares Fog signals Fuses Rockets Percussion caps Detonators Cartridges Ammunition of all descriptions
Are fireworks classed as explosives?
No.
S2(d) arms act 1983
Explosive does not include any firework as defined in S2 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.
Property
Property includes real and personal property, and any estate or interest in any real or personal property, money, electricity, and any debt, and any thing in action, and any other right or interest.
Knowing
Means knowing or correctly believing. The defendant may believe something wrongly, but cannot know something that is false.
Simester and Brookbanks
Explain the subjective objective test in relation to knowing danger to life?
What was the offender thinking at the time? Did the defendant know that human life was likely to be endangered by his actions?
Subjective.
What would a reasonable person have thought on the same circumstances? Wiukd a reasonable person have recognised the risk?
Objective